QoS Issue/Help Needed

Unanswered Question
Mar 2nd, 2010

Hi All, really need some help here... Long running issue with an MGCP gateway connected to a QoS enabled ADSL circuit. The circuit runs at 2048K down and 256K up. Now the QoS profile which is applied to a ppp dialer is as follows:

class-map match-any Voice-Input-Class

match ip precedence 5

match ip dscp ef

match protocol skinny

policy-map Tiscali-VoIP-LLQ-Out

class Voice-Input-Class

priority 200

set ip precedence 5

class class-default

My first question is, wouldn't having a 200K strict priority queue like this purely for voice and signalling (i know not best practice) on a circuit with a maximum upstream bw of 256K completely starve out any other traffic heading upstream on this circuit?

Second, shouldn’t i see packets matched in the strict priority queue below? I do see them being remarked...

[REMOVED]#show policy-map interface dialer 1


Service-policy output: Tiscali-VoIP-LLQ-Out

Class-map: Voice-Input-Class (match-any)

5942646 packets, 363944143 bytes

30 second offered rate 41000 bps, drop rate 0 bps

Match: ip precedence 5

3616891 packets, 238718354 bytes

30 second rate 41000 bps

Match: ip dscp ef (46)

0 packets, 0 bytes

30 second rate 0 bps

Match: protocol skinny

2325755 packets, 125225789 bytes

30 second rate 0 bps


Strict Priority

Output Queue: Conversation 264

Bandwidth 200 (kbps) Burst 5000 (Bytes)

(pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0

(total drops/bytes drops) 0/0

QoS Set

precedence 5

Packets marked 5938941

Class-map: class-default (match-any)

11204238 packets, 1756554359 bytes

30 second offered rate 18000 bps, drop rate 0 bps

Match: any

[REMOVED]#show policy-map interface virtual-access2


Third, since the virtual-access interface is the actual queuing interface shouldn’t i see the service policy cloned to this interface?

Sorry, i know, three questions for the price of one but anyway, if anyone can help because TAC don’t seem to be able to i would really really appreciate it!

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)


This Discussion